The QC-15 headphones I have sound OK. They are more quiet than anything else I've tried in the consumer market. But I still find it annoying they didn't come with a volume control. They must have saved $0.75 to leave that out.
The software did not implement what the law says. The could just fix the software to make it allow for what the law says. But the bureaucracy won't allow just fixing the software because... apparently this was all contracted out, and they have to do an all new contract to have it fixed. So not only will it take a year or more, but it will cost at least 3.75 million dollars to do it because the old computers with the wrong software will have to be smashed and replaced with all new computers, including new mice, with the new software.
Neither. If it's a corporation I say no. If it's a BIG corporation I say HELL NO! At least the NSA hasn't shown any interest in targeting me with advertising.
Romney said corporations just want to be people, too. As soon as we make the laws put corporations IN JAIL when they commit crimes, then I might believe that. So what does that mean? It means that the corporation cannot do anything during the "jail term". It must shutdown its functionality, taking in no revenues (just like any worker who commits a crime has to lose their income during their time in jail). Under such laws, the board of directors of these corporations will find it necessary to be sure they hire CEOs and other executives to be sure the company never "has to go to jail". But I'd give them an alternative: all the board of directors and all the C-level executives can do the jail term, as a group, in lieu of the corporation (which gets to stay open under temporary alternative management).
For things like the electric grid, there shouldn't even be any access at all. It's that critical. It is critical enough that they should have private FIBER following every power line.
For people info like SSN and bank account numbers, the system should be revised so that the number alone only serves to IDENTIFY and is not treated as AUTHORIZATION. Lots of people have other people's SSNs for various reasons. Using the identification number for authorization is totally wrong. This also goes for credit card numbers and bank account numbers. The WHOLE banking system was built around assumed universal trust, which actually never was a valid assumption, ever. But it is even less so today. Every banking transaction needs to include some form of authorization, either a properly encrypted hash of the full transaction, signed by the authorized person's private key, or in physical form like a signature on paper.
What these things do is make having SSNs and account numbers pointless. Any bank that hands YOUR money over to someone who can recite YOUR SSN, should be fined $1000000 plus ten times the transaction loss. If that cause then to go out of business, then that is well deserved.
... are essential to the servers that handle the data. They can't actually operate on the encrypted data. They have to UN-encrypted it first (and RE-encrypted it to put it back if there any changes). So what does this mean to me? It means I have to grab the encryption key(s) when I break in to get the data.
This reminds me of an incident with a state web site. Someone broke in and did some defacing. The state's top IT director answered a reporter's query with "This needs to be investigated because we bought a top of the line firewall that should have blocked the hacker".
The lack of a clear and rock solid standard for how to render the HTML/CSS combination is probably part of the problem of "never been able to draw webpages correctly". Shouldn't I get a pixel perfect identical display from the same web site content, on each different browser? If not, and left up to the interpretation of the browser developers, then expect crap.
... humanity. While there is a lot of good that comes with humanity, the dangers far outweigh the benefits. Look at all the wars. Look at all the greed. Look at all the evil governments. Look at all the murder even where there is no war.
For many websites I have to periodically turn Javascript OFF because the developers are just stupid. But in even more cases, it is because the developers are abusive. One such site is a place called images.google.com. But it's not so much what Google codes. Although Google does do tracking abuses using Javascript, I don't really care much about that. The real problem is visiting the sites with the images I find, only to have those sites doing redirects away from the page with the image. Those are what I turn Javascript on an off with. And I even leave the preferences menu open on the side so I can turn it on and off easily.
What the Firefox developers should do is move the button to turn Javascript on and off up to the front panel with all the other instantly reachable buttons. With it right at the front, then there won't be so many problems.
But yet again, Firefox developers continue to try to force people to continue using older versions. Now we have an even stronger reason to do just that.
The greater problem banks have in the USA is people depositing bad checks, and pulling the money out and the check bounces later as fraudulent. And "later" is not the period for the check to clear. It can be a check written on someone else's account, and that victim has more days (usually at least 90) to report the fraud. So by the time the bad check comes back to they perp's bank account, the money is gone.
The banks COULD get around this better by creating "direct deposit only" accounts AND make it so that ANY check or ATM withdrawal fails if it would overdraw the account by even a penny. Trouble is, they can't even do that. Many ATMs do not actually contact the bank in real time (banks are not always contactable, but have "pay anyway" agreements with the ATM servicer when the bank is unreachable). That's their dirty little secret. That's why many have withdrawal limits. It would raise the cost of ATMs to fix that.
BTW, there are ways to cheat even the pre-paid cards. That's why the employers have to give name AND SSN of the person "holding" the card. And if someone else cheats them on your card, YOU are responsible and there are cases of people being sued for negative card balances caused by criminals. yes, the money on many these cards can be withdrawn in Lagos, Nigeria.
Not everyone can get a bank account. Not everyone wants to pay the fees for keeping a bank account. Not everyone makes enough to keep tied up in a bank account. Not everyone wants to risk their money in a bank. Not everyone wants a bank tracking them. Not everyone wants to get this spammy special offers in the mail all the time.
Many years ago my then employer, employer of over 20000 people, "blew" a payroll (accidentally transferred money to the wrong account). All the direct deposits were reversed the next Monday, and many accounts became overdraw as a result (because these people had spent more than their previous balance over the weekend). I was lucky that I still got a paper check, AND I cashed it at the employer's bank before the SHTF, and deposited the money in MY OWN bank on the other corner of the same block (as I did every pay period). The mess was "fixed" by Wednesday and all the direct deposits were re-instated. But people had in some cases months of trouble with banks trying to undo the fee mess that was caused. Although the banks receiving the deposits were told about what happened, they were not required to just cancel the fees. Most did. A few did not. And the mess propagated to other banks and accounts as well.
I still get my pay in the form of a check. I don't trust any other method.
Some states require banks to pay "payroll" checks with NO FEE at all, at least up to some certain amounts. So let's tell Republicans to stick it up their @@@@ and make this law nationwide, with penalties like a day in jail per incident.
So then you agree that we need to make such a law fully universal across the whole country, mandating that this one time whole payment withdrawal be with NO FEE, under penalty of a day in jail for the CEO of the company that caused it to happen, for every affected person per pay period (so if their company charged a fee or allowed one to be charged, for 500 employees for 3 pay periods, that's 1500 days in jail)?
Slashdot Mirror
They cost the price that they believe the market will bear enough to maximize their profit.
The QC-15 headphones I have sound OK. They are more quiet than anything else I've tried in the consumer market. But I still find it annoying they didn't come with a volume control. They must have saved $0.75 to leave that out.
... is to file charges against the governor for possessing these now-illegal things.
... as 1/65536 of a day. Then I can do time calculations on my 6502.
The software did not implement what the law says. The could just fix the software to make it allow for what the law says. But the bureaucracy won't allow just fixing the software because ... apparently this was all contracted out, and they have to do an all new contract to have it fixed. So not only will it take a year or more, but it will cost at least 3.75 million dollars to do it because the old computers with the wrong software will have to be smashed and replaced with all new computers, including new mice, with the new software.
Your tax dollars at waste.
Just let the techies run the show.
Buy a new phone. You know they want you to.
Neither. If it's a corporation I say no. If it's a BIG corporation I say HELL NO! At least the NSA hasn't shown any interest in targeting me with advertising.
Don't forget that H-1Bs also work overtime for free.
... unless thy start selling data to advertisers.
Romney said corporations just want to be people, too. As soon as we make the laws put corporations IN JAIL when they commit crimes, then I might believe that. So what does that mean? It means that the corporation cannot do anything during the "jail term". It must shutdown its functionality, taking in no revenues (just like any worker who commits a crime has to lose their income during their time in jail). Under such laws, the board of directors of these corporations will find it necessary to be sure they hire CEOs and other executives to be sure the company never "has to go to jail". But I'd give them an alternative: all the board of directors and all the C-level executives can do the jail term, as a group, in lieu of the corporation (which gets to stay open under temporary alternative management).
Yeah, let's just get rid of the laws that keep corporations responsible so they can more efficiently screw consumers.
For things like the electric grid, there shouldn't even be any access at all. It's that critical. It is critical enough that they should have private FIBER following every power line.
For people info like SSN and bank account numbers, the system should be revised so that the number alone only serves to IDENTIFY and is not treated as AUTHORIZATION. Lots of people have other people's SSNs for various reasons. Using the identification number for authorization is totally wrong. This also goes for credit card numbers and bank account numbers. The WHOLE banking system was built around assumed universal trust, which actually never was a valid assumption, ever. But it is even less so today. Every banking transaction needs to include some form of authorization, either a properly encrypted hash of the full transaction, signed by the authorized person's private key, or in physical form like a signature on paper.
What these things do is make having SSNs and account numbers pointless. Any bank that hands YOUR money over to someone who can recite YOUR SSN, should be fined $1000000 plus ten times the transaction loss. If that cause then to go out of business, then that is well deserved.
Will that include the decryption key?
... are essential to the servers that handle the data. They can't actually operate on the encrypted data. They have to UN-encrypted it first (and RE-encrypted it to put it back if there any changes). So what does this mean to me? It means I have to grab the encryption key(s) when I break in to get the data.
This reminds me of an incident with a state web site. Someone broke in and did some defacing. The state's top IT director answered a reporter's query with "This needs to be investigated because we bought a top of the line firewall that should have blocked the hacker".
... for new heads, is probably still going to be hard to get on.
Damn, that's a 108% market saturation!
Hopefully they will do better in FF 23 when they remove the ability to disable Javascript. Oh wait ...
The lack of a clear and rock solid standard for how to render the HTML/CSS combination is probably part of the problem of "never been able to draw webpages correctly". Shouldn't I get a pixel perfect identical display from the same web site content, on each different browser? If not, and left up to the interpretation of the browser developers, then expect crap.
... humanity. While there is a lot of good that comes with humanity, the dangers far outweigh the benefits. Look at all the wars. Look at all the greed. Look at all the evil governments. Look at all the murder even where there is no war.
For many websites I have to periodically turn Javascript OFF because the developers are just stupid. But in even more cases, it is because the developers are abusive. One such site is a place called images.google.com. But it's not so much what Google codes. Although Google does do tracking abuses using Javascript, I don't really care much about that. The real problem is visiting the sites with the images I find, only to have those sites doing redirects away from the page with the image. Those are what I turn Javascript on an off with. And I even leave the preferences menu open on the side so I can turn it on and off easily.
What the Firefox developers should do is move the button to turn Javascript on and off up to the front panel with all the other instantly reachable buttons. With it right at the front, then there won't be so many problems.
But yet again, Firefox developers continue to try to force people to continue using older versions. Now we have an even stronger reason to do just that.
And how much does it cost you to write a check for pay?
The greater problem banks have in the USA is people depositing bad checks, and pulling the money out and the check bounces later as fraudulent. And "later" is not the period for the check to clear. It can be a check written on someone else's account, and that victim has more days (usually at least 90) to report the fraud. So by the time the bad check comes back to they perp's bank account, the money is gone.
The banks COULD get around this better by creating "direct deposit only" accounts AND make it so that ANY check or ATM withdrawal fails if it would overdraw the account by even a penny. Trouble is, they can't even do that. Many ATMs do not actually contact the bank in real time (banks are not always contactable, but have "pay anyway" agreements with the ATM servicer when the bank is unreachable). That's their dirty little secret. That's why many have withdrawal limits. It would raise the cost of ATMs to fix that.
BTW, there are ways to cheat even the pre-paid cards. That's why the employers have to give name AND SSN of the person "holding" the card. And if someone else cheats them on your card, YOU are responsible and there are cases of people being sued for negative card balances caused by criminals. yes, the money on many these cards can be withdrawn in Lagos, Nigeria.
Not everyone can get a bank account. Not everyone wants to pay the fees for keeping a bank account. Not everyone makes enough to keep tied up in a bank account. Not everyone wants to risk their money in a bank. Not everyone wants a bank tracking them. Not everyone wants to get this spammy special offers in the mail all the time.
Many years ago my then employer, employer of over 20000 people, "blew" a payroll (accidentally transferred money to the wrong account). All the direct deposits were reversed the next Monday, and many accounts became overdraw as a result (because these people had spent more than their previous balance over the weekend). I was lucky that I still got a paper check, AND I cashed it at the employer's bank before the SHTF, and deposited the money in MY OWN bank on the other corner of the same block (as I did every pay period). The mess was "fixed" by Wednesday and all the direct deposits were re-instated. But people had in some cases months of trouble with banks trying to undo the fee mess that was caused. Although the banks receiving the deposits were told about what happened, they were not required to just cancel the fees. Most did. A few did not. And the mess propagated to other banks and accounts as well.
I still get my pay in the form of a check. I don't trust any other method.
Some states require banks to pay "payroll" checks with NO FEE at all, at least up to some certain amounts. So let's tell Republicans to stick it up their @@@@ and make this law nationwide, with penalties like a day in jail per incident.
So then you agree that we need to make such a law fully universal across the whole country, mandating that this one time whole payment withdrawal be with NO FEE, under penalty of a day in jail for the CEO of the company that caused it to happen, for every affected person per pay period (so if their company charged a fee or allowed one to be charged, for 500 employees for 3 pay periods, that's 1500 days in jail)?
Or the CFO.